Cirrus Deploys Chute Safely

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:11:04 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Justin H" wrote in message
...
Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?

Even the Cirrus will spin -- you just pull the CAPS handle to make it
stop.
:-) Spin certification is an additional expense and the planes are
expensive
enough as it is. Still, there are plenty of airplanes certified for spin
training, not least the ubiquitous Cessna 172.

The Cessna 172 is not certified under the same regulations as the Cirrus.
Unlike cars, once an airplane has received its type certificate, it does
not have to be redesigned whenever the regulations are updated.

Actually, when Cessna started building new piston aircraft, they were
re-certified under the new regulations.

Roger, I am with you on your points, but I have to say that it seems the
Diamond Star (admittedly not hi performance) and Lancair 400 have managed to
create wings that are efficient and stall/spin friendly.

I think that we should expect a new design to be better in these areas due
to all our new knowledge, tools, and materials. I guess I am just to
demanding?

At any rate, you are right on about pilots not being ready for the Cirrus
planes, and I don't see the 20 being any easier to fly than the 22.

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message ...
The 172 came out in the '50s, and there's a good chance that the actual
type certificate is that of the Cessna 170, which came out in the '40s.

The 172 through 172S type certificate was originally issued in 1955 and amended up through
2000. The 172RG is a different type certificate, as is the 170 (came out in 1948).

"C J Campbell" wrote in message news:9_mdnSZx5qHW2MncRVn-

Actually, when Cessna started building new piston aircraft, they were
re-certified under the new regulations.

If you are talking about the singles they most certainly were NOT.
The 172R and 172S were issued as amendments to type certificate 3A12,
the late model 182's on 3A13, and the 206's on A4CE. All use CAR3 as
their certification basis.

While FAA keeps talking about requiring changes to TC's and STC's to
correspond to the current requirements, they've not ever actually made that
change to the regulations.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message news:9_mdnSZx5qHW2MncRVn-

Actually, when Cessna started building new piston aircraft, they were
re-certified under the new regulations.

If you are talking about the singles they most certainly were NOT.
The 172R and 172S were issued as amendments to type certificate 3A12,
the late model 182's on 3A13, and the 206's on A4CE. All use CAR3 as
their certification basis.

I'll follow this up. CJ is right on this one. While they were certificated on the same
type certificate, it was certificated under FAR23, but with a whole list of exceptions.

Earlier, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

...I am reminded of an article I read several years ago, about
the development of the Aviat Husky. While looking much like an older
design, it was a brand-new aircraft that was certified under the modern
Part 23. The article quoted the company president saying that the
certification process was not especially onerous or time/money consuming.

Probably Alfred Scott's article "Lite Engineering and the Myth of
Simplified Certification":

http://www.seqair.com/Other/LiteEng/LiteEng.html

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

If the airplane is supposed to be spin and stall resistant and the pilots
are
trained properly, then this type of accident should be much more rare than
it seems to be.

The airplane is supposed to be spin resistant. I don't recall any
knowledgeable person claiming that it is stall resistant. As with most
general aviation airplanes, you can pitch it so that the angle of attack
exceeds the critical angle, and the wing will stall.

Regards,

-Mike

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:9_mdnSZx5qHW2MncRVn-

Actually, when Cessna started building new piston aircraft, they were
re-certified under the new regulations.

If you are talking about the singles they most certainly were NOT.
The 172R and 172S were issued as amendments to type certificate 3A12,
the late model 182's on 3A13, and the 206's on A4CE. All use CAR3 as
their certification basis.

I'll follow this up. CJ is right on this one. While they were
certificated on the same
type certificate, it was certificated under FAR23, but with a whole list
of exceptions.


(Whew) I was gettin' ready to demand my money back.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
The 172 came out in the '50s, and there's a good chance that the actual
type certificate is that of the Cessna 170, which came out in the '40s.

The 172 through 172S type certificate was originally issued in 1955 and
amended up through
2000. The 172RG is a different type certificate, as is the 170 (came out
in 1948).


It is actually more complex than that. The 172RG and 172XP are appended to
the type certificate for the 175, of all things. There are a couple of other
172s also that are on the 175 certificate. I bet you could write a whole
book about it, and there are some people who are so interested in this kind
of thing that they would actually buy it.

On 24 Sep 2004 15:57:32 -0700, (Bob Kuykendall) wrote:

Earlier, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

...I am reminded of an article I read several years ago, about
the development of the Aviat Husky. While looking much like an older
design, it was a brand-new aircraft that was certified under the modern
Part 23. The article quoted the company president saying that the
certification process was not especially onerous or time/money consuming.

Probably Alfred Scott's article "Lite Engineering and the Myth of
Simplified Certification":

http://www.seqair.com/Other/LiteEng/LiteEng.html

Yep, that's it. Don't know how I got to thinking it was a FLYING magazine
article.

Scott *does* have a few good turns of phrase in the piece. "Libertarian
Tulipmania"... I love it.

Ron Wanttaja